The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

I left out 1964 for a reason. Goldwater was seen as ideologically extreme, but he still received an endorsement from the prior Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon campaigned vigorously for him. You did not see dozens of GOP establishment policy figures openly denounce Goldwater. Also, there was never any doubt that LBJ would beat Goldwater, so I suppose that tempered the hysteria significantly.

Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY)
Gov. Nelson Rockefeler (R-NY)
Rep. John V. Lindsay (R-NY)
Gov. William Scranton (R-PA)
Gov. George Romney (R-MI)
Sen. Clifford Case (R-NJ)
Sen. Thomas Kuchel (R-CA)

Just to name a few who did not endorse Goldwater.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The media has been too kind to Trump. They treat him as if he is some sort of serious candidate - not the dangerous buffoon that he is. But what can you expect from such a vapid and supercilious group. "Journalists," especially the cable tv variety, really are to blame for this catastrophe. The whole lot of them are either too dumb - or at the least too self important - to do any real informing.

But he WAS and IS a serious candidate.  In what measure is he not?  Money?  A following?  Name recognition?  Experience in management at the highest levels? 

How ethical would it be if the media had just ignored Trump?  There has long been a call for an outsider and a businessman to run for President and Trump filled the bill.  Is it the MEDIA'S job to "weed out" candidates?  Is it the media that determines that a candidate is "serious"? 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

I left out 1964 for a reason. Goldwater was seen as ideologically extreme, but he still received an endorsement from the prior Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon campaigned vigorously for him. You did not see dozens of GOP establishment policy figures openly denounce Goldwater. Also, there was never any doubt that LBJ would beat Goldwater, so I suppose that tempered the hysteria significantly.

Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY)
Gov. Nelson Rockefeler (R-NY)
Rep. John V. Lindsay (R-NY)
Gov. William Scranton (R-PA)
Gov. George Romney (R-MI)
Sen. Clifford Case (R-NJ)
Sen. Thomas Kuchel (R-CA)

Just to name a few who did not endorse Goldwater.

Wow, nice precedent

Nixon, who endorsed Goldwater and campaigned for him, assured the media that Goldwater was "reasonable" and "not some kind of a jerk or a wild man".  Sounds like some of the Trump endorsements from Establishment types.

The guys I mentioned had careers afterward, but never ran for President.  Case, Kuchel and Javits lost primaries to conservatives.  Rockefeller was forced out of the Vice Presidency, which he was APPOINTED to, and not elected to.  Lindsay was run out of the GOP in 1969 after losing the GOP Mayoral primary in NYC to conservative John Marchi; he was re-elected as a candidate of the Liberal Party.  Scranton and Romney became obscure Cabinet members. 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

No, what is unprecedented is a Republican party that thinks it's okay to obstruct every move a President makes just because of his skin pigmentation.

Donald Trump is the personification of that ignorance and obstruction.  He should be fed to a polar bear, but instead he is being treated like a serious presidential candidate.  The fact that people would vote for him just shows how many Americans hate their country and hate each other.

Yes, I agree with the first paragraph.  I am a 2012 Obama voter and I agree with this.

But the personification of ignorance and obstruction is not Donald Trump.  It is Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and others like them.  It is also folks like Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and even Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski; folks that seek to appear to be reasonable, but are not  Trump is the kind of person that would work with Democrats once the dust of 2016 settled and folks came to their senses.  Whether Democrats would work with him is another issue.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

He insults hispanics, blacks and the disabled
He says he wants to get rid of food regulations and safety standards
He wants to abolish the epa and pollute

What's not to be opposed too if you're a decent human being?

It's not the degree of partisanship within the media that's troubling, it's the degree to which the media is willing to sink to hysterical attacks to accomplish their goals. I mean, I read a thread on here a few days ago and multiple team red drama queens were agreeing with each other that if Trump were to win there would literally be no more free elections never ever again forever and always. Trump is an unqualified oafish asshole, but the odds of him being an evil dictator who will do even a fraction of the things some lefties are whispering about are comically low. Again the issue isn't that people are taking sides; that's natural. The issue is painting "other" (i.e. about 40% of America) as somehow being a fundamental threat to society. The lefty caricature of Trump (OMG he will cause GENOCIDE!) is becoming as unbelievable as the GOP caricature of Hillary (OMG she had a list of people MURDERED!). Trump will not destroy America or turn illegal immigrants into soylent green or nuke China to prove he has big hands. He will just be a sh**tty President. Like a majority of Presidents since WW2.

This is the bottom line for Trump.  A similar bottom line is there for Hillary.

I don't see this election as apocalyptic.  I just see two (2) less than ideal candidates.